Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia

Raisio, Harri; Vartiainen, Pirkko

doi:10.1007/s11077-015-9221-1

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the last year or so alone, the term been applied to a wide range of issues cutting across a range of policy sectors-such as housing and urban planning (Walter and Holbrook 2015), euthanasia policy (Raisio and Vartiainen 2015), prison education (Czerniawski 2016), tobacco use (Rigotti and Wallace 2015), amongst a host of others-expanding to virtually all public policy concerns (not only limited to classic social policy concerns of the welfare state or provision of social services). So many issues and features of design issues can be found to contain elements of wickedness, however, that Coyne (2005) has gone so far as to argue that ''[w]ickedness is the norm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

Parkhurst

2016

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wicked policy problems are often said to be characterized by their 'intractability', whereby appeals to evidence are unable to provide policy resolution. Advocates for 'Evidence Based Policy' (EBP) often lament these situations as representing the misuse of evidence for strategic ends, while critical policy studies authors counter that policy decisions are fundamentally about competing values, with the (blind) embrace of technical evidence depoliticizing political decisions. This paper aims to help resolve these conflicts and, in doing so, consider how to address this particular feature of problem wickedness. Specifically the paper delineates two forms of evidentiary bias that drive intractability, each of which is reflected by contrasting positions in the EBP debates: 'technical bias'-referring to invalid uses of evidence; and 'issue bias'-referring to how pieces of evidence direct policy agendas to particular concerns. Drawing on the fields of policy studies and cognitive psychology, the paper explores the ways in which competing interests and values manifest in these forms of bias, and shape evidence utilization through different mechanisms. The paper presents a conceptual framework reflecting on how the nature of policy problems in terms of their complexity, contestation, and polarization can help identify the potential origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias leading to intractability in some wicked policy debates. The discussion reflects on how a better understanding about such mechanisms could inform future work to mitigate or overcome such intractability.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

Parkhurst

2016

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A possible limitation of this study is that the jury process was constrained to a four-day period. This may not have provided the jury with sufficient time to process the information they were given, and some of the jurors did indicate that they would have benefited 16,17 They maintain that such problems are 'well-nigh impossible' to solve in a lasting and generally acceptable way due to the combination of difficulties they present, including disagreements about formulating the question, an inability to test possible answers, connections to other unresolved problems, the lack of objective criteria against which to assess claims and the range of competing values that shape how people view and respond to them. This characterization might explain the outcome of this citizens' jury, in that it indicates the difficulty of reaching agreement on such an issue through deliberative processes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A citizens' jury on euthanasia/assisted dying: Does informed deliberation change people's views?

Walker

Egan

Young

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Euthanasia or assisted dying (EAD) remains a highly contentious issue internationally. Although polls report that a majority New Zealanders support EAD, there are concerns about the framing of the polling questions, and that those responding to the questions do not know enough about the situations described, the options available and the potential implications of EAD policy. One way to address these concerns is through a citizens' jury, which is a method of learning how a group of people view an issue following informed deliberation. This citizens' jury was conducted to learn whether a group of 15 New Zealanders thought the law should be changed to allow some form of EAD and the reasons for their view, having been informed about the issue, heard arguments for and against, and having deliberated together. The jury met for two and a half days. They did not reach a consensus, but become polarized in their positions, with several changing their positions to either strong opposition or strong support. The reasons why people support or oppose EAD were not reducible to particular principles or arguments, but reflected an integrated assessment of a range of considerations, informed by personal priorities and experiences. These results suggest that views on EAD may change in response to informed deliberation that the EAD debate involves a range of value judgments and is not likely to be resolved through deliberation alone. These results may inform international debate on EAD policy.

show abstract

“…Ideally, after introductions given by various experts, such as scientists and economists, exchanging views on and profound reflections of the issue addressed, a conclusion, which all members of the deliberation can engage with, is reached and presented. [14,15] The definition of deliberation as a shared public discussion and a collective process of DD differentiates it from a conversation. Fishkin [9] outlines the quality of a deliberative process through five conditions: -Information.…”

Section: The Deliberative Democracy Idealmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative future visioning: utilizing the deliberative democracy theory and practice in futures research

Pernaa

2017

Eur J Futures Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Broadly defined, deliberative democracy aspires the decision-making legitimacy by deliberation of equal citizens. As a response to the growing discontent with the representational governance, the normative and empirical development of the deliberative democracy theory addresses the increasing desiderata of public engagement beyond party politics and constituencies. Generating knowledge for the use of policy-making, foresight shares a common ground of participative and policy-impacting challenges with the deliberative democracy theory. In this article the prospects and mutual advantages of deliberative democracy (DD) alliance with the field of futures studies are discussed. The exploration strives to accentuate the societal policy-making advantages of the cross-disciplinary development. The article begins with introducing the deliberative democracy theory and the theoretical development, following with an account of some encouraging deliberative practices. A brief sketch of two recent projects enhancing participation detail the discrepancies in defining the concept. After examining the common epistemic ground of futures studies and social studies, the cross-disciplinary interface and shared key elements in policy-making impact are described. The article proposes a multi-voiced and future-oriented dialogue as a prerequisite for ameliorating societal preparedness and resilience in a world marked by proliferating uncertainty.

show abstract

Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia

Cited by 14 publications

References 61 publications

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

A citizens' jury on euthanasia/assisted dying: Does informed deliberation change people's views?

Deliberative future visioning: utilizing the deliberative democracy theory and practice in futures research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About